일본이 제2차 대전 항복문서에 조인한 후 동경의 '연합국 최고사령부' SCAPIN 677에 부속된 ‘연합국 최고사령부 관할지역도’는 '독도'(리앙쿠르 섬)에 대한 영토주권이 한국에 있음을 명확하게 표시하였다. 하지만 이후 체결한 샌프란시스코 평화조약은 영역관련 조항을 규정하고 있음에도 불구하고 부속지도를 공식적으로나 비공식적으로 채택하지 않았다. 이러한 상황에서 일본 국회가 샌프란시스코 평화조약을 비준승인하는 과정에서 참고한 지도로 알려진 ‘일본영역참고도’는 샌프란시스코 평화조약과의 관련성으로 인해 국제법적 측면에서 세밀한 검토가 필요하다. 국제중재법원(PCA)과 국제사법법원(ICJ)은 종래 지도의 증거력에 대해 소극적 해석입장을 유지해 왔다. 하지만 국제법정이 최근에 다룬 사건들을 보면 지도의 증거가치에 대한 소극적 접근에서 상당한 변화를 보여주고 있다. 이러한 국제법원의 지도의 증명력에 대한 태도변화를 고려할 때 독도문제와 관련하여 제시되는 ‘일본영역참고도’와 ‘일본영역도’ 그리고 SCAPIN 677에 따른 ‘연합국최고사령부 관할지도’ 등 각기 다른 지도증거들에 보이는 일관된 독도의 영토주권 표시가 한국 측에 유리하다는 점은 일본이 독도에 대한 영토주권문제를 ICJ에 부탁하자고 주장하는데 부담이 될 수 있다. 한국은 역사적 고지도 외에도 독도를 한국의 영토로 표시하고 있는 일본에서 제작된 태정관지령의 첨부지도로서 ‘기죽도 약도’와 같은 일본의 역사적 또는 공식적 지도들을 이용하여 독도에 대한 한국의 명확한 영토주권을 입증할 수 있기 때문이다. 반면에 일본은 독도를 일본의 영토로 표시하고 있는 한국지도가 없으므로 불리한 입장에 있을 수밖에 없다. 지도의 중립성에 무게들 두고 제3국에 의하여 제작된 지도에 더 많은 신뢰성을 부여하고 있는 국제법정의 태도를 고려할 때, 자국의 입장과 반대되는 사실을 표시하고 있는 공인지도인 ‘일본영역참고도’는 일본 정부에 의하여 제작되었기 때문에 독도를 한국의 영역으로 표시한 제3국의 공인지도 보다 한국에게 더 유리한 것이다. 따라서 독도문제를 제3자적 입장에서 해결하게 된다면 지도의 증거능력과 증명력에 커다란 무게를 부여하고 결정적 판단요소가 되도록 해야 한다. 한국의 독도주권의 권원을 입증하는 근거로서 ‘일본영역참고도’와 ‘일본영역도’ 그리고 제3자에 의한 지도로서 SCAPIN 677에 근거한 ‘연합국최고사령부관할지역도’는 일본과 제3의 국제적 실체에 의하여 제작되어 정치적 정확성과 중립성을 갖추었을 뿐만 아니라 지도내용의 획일성 또한 상당히 확보하고 있기 때문에 일본의 빈약한 증거들을 압도하는 결정적 증거로서 한국과 일본의 영토관련 논쟁의 해결에 중대한 기여를 할 수 있을 것이다.

In the korean supreme court case in question, the fact needs to be reconsidered, that the prosecutor’s record containing the statement of witness that becomes the decisive evidence to prove the guilt was left out. Especially, even though the court judged that the chance of cross-examination was provided to the declarant of the record and there was no substantial violation of procedural rules, it could have assess the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness. Every issue will be absorbed into the principle of free evaluation of evidence, if the admissibility of the prosecutor’s record is not considered. It is so hard to completely agree with the argument of the dissenting opinion in which in case of inconsistent statements more weight of reliability must be placed on a court testimony. It is because it is clearly in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence to simply more rely on a court testimony in case of inconsistent statement. In light of the facts appearing in the case in question, it was possible to assess reliability of circumstances of statement separately from total consideration of reliability of evidences. Most of all, the witness’ statement before prosecutor should not have easily admitted when considering its’doubtful circumstances. Therefore, the courts, expecially the appellate court, should have closely examined the circumstances by having the persons related to the prosecutor’s interrogation take the stance. Because this process was left out, the requirement of the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness was not satisfied.

The purpose of the Act on The Protection of Children Against Sexual Abuse is to prepare procedures for relieving and assisting victimized children and juveniles, and protecting them against sexual abuse and assisting them to become sound members of society. Any person who commits an offense of indecent act against a child or juvenile shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for a limited term of at least two years or by a fine of at least ten million won, but not more than 30 million won. From the perspective of children and juveniles, protection of their sexual autonomy should have special meaning. Understanding of self, will, sex, age, and environment of children must be considered when the court make decision on the relevant cases. Sexual violence against children must have devastated effect on their development towards a man or woman who fully enjoys his or her own self determination of sex. The case reviewed by this essay is on the issue of medical treatment by pediatrist and indecent act against children patients. The court denied victims’ statement on their victimization as a guess or emotional reaction, not real experiences. Investigators and judges should have special understanding on the characteristics of child victim’s statements on his or her experiences. Most of all, the criminal court in sexual violence cases should pay attention not to the consistency of statement by children, but to the special behaviour and mind of their victimization, and further to the social context of sexual violence.

In a sex offender ecosystem, it is necessary to ensure that rape is applied only to violent breaches of at least sexual self-determination. However, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court may have too broad a range of rape cases in this case. On the contrary, The first and second trial courts seem to be wary of further rape charges. On the basis of this case, it is likely to be the type that corresponds to the sexual compel in the German criminal law. So it would be more appropriate to introduce and punish the sexual compel in legislation if consensus was formed on the need to punish people for forcing sexual behavior. That would also eliminate the need to stretch and punish rape charges. The Supreme Court calls the degree of rape and intimidation the most serious offense and threat. But, it seems that the comprehensive judgment system applies the standards of violence and intimidation of consultation. However, such a comprehensive judgment does not provide a clear standard. Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court made a different judgment from the first and second trials. However, the main reason why it is difficult to consistently punish sex crimes is because there is a big problem with the current sex criminal law system. As the wrong legal system is filled with diverse legal interpretations, the burden is entirely on citizens. Therefore, it is inevitable that there continue to be disturbance in the ecosystem of sex crimes. The preferred way to fix this mess is for lawmakers to fix the current sex crime system. And the court should try to help citizens form a proper consciousness of norms on sex crimes through a consistent and clear application of the law.

The purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains is to deprive the crime of its illegal profits and prevent it from being retained. On the other hand, under criminal law, joint crime, teacher crime, and accessories are intended to be punished for criminal acts and their degree of participation, so the two do not necessarily have to be consistent in logic. In other words, if a person is merely an accessory and receives sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she should pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. but if a person is joint principal offender and receive not sufficient income from a crime through crime, he or she do not need to pay an additional charge of criminal profits obtained in the form of wages, etc. In the result, who will pay the penalty from depends on the attainment of the purpose of the confiscational or penalty of criminal gains.

The Supreme Court of Korea has adopted a methodology of rigorous grammatical interpretation in order to satisfy the Constitutional requirement of law-binding in judgement of criminal case. However, the principle of law-binding does not mean the so-called ‘legal state.’ For this reason, the national justice system of the law recognizes the supplements of the judiciary. This article observes criminal judgement that the Supreme Court of Korea is suspected of going beyond just a supplementary role to ‘judicial justice’. As a result of analyzing the criminal judgment, the Supreme Court found that the following folly is used in using deductive syllogism. First, Producing of non-existent premise. Second, Arbitrary manipulating or processing of a premise. Third, excessive normative interpretation of a premise. Fourth, Formulating of general clause. Therefore, this article emphasizes the task of criminal law discipline which should prevent the judicial branch from walking the way of judicial jurisdiction by critically examining the various act of manipulation of Supreme Court which is carried out in the name of providing the legal basis for the preconceived conclusion in the deduction process.

In 2007, the Criminal Procedure Act has been changed into actually new law reflecting the social demands to protect the rights of defendants and suspects in the criminal procedure. The Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2011, adding the relevance as a requirement of seizure and specifying the range and method of seizure or search on digital evidence. And it supplemented the method of proving the authenticity of digital evidence with some amendments in 2016. It can be said that it has continued to influence the Supreme Court precedent and the precedent also influenced legislation and investigation practice and led to change. This article examines the trends of major cases in the proceedings and evidence law since 2007. The Supreme Court’s cases on investigation procedures and evidence law have consistently emphasized the due process principles of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, and apply strict standards for existing practices throughout the investigation process including voluntary company, arrest, interrogation, and occasionally have suggested standards and directions of practice from the perspective of judicial control. In particular, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence was applied to use of material evidence and the evidence that was illegally collected by the investigating agency in violation of the due process could not be used as evidence of guilt in principle. In the exceptional case that the procedural violation is not equivalent to the violation of the substantive contents of the due process, and the exclusion of the evidence is against the harmonization of the due process and substantive truth in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law, the evidence can be used. Thereafter, the Supreme Court has elaborated the criteria and exceptional jurisprudence on the illegally obtained evidence through various precedents. Since 2007, there have been important precedents related to the seizure of digital evidence, the authenticity and exceptional application of hearsay rule on digital evidence, and specific precedents on the interpretation and standards of exceptional application of hearsay rule of the revised Criminal Procedure Act, which were also the starting point of a new discussion. And this article suggests that, for right judicial justice, the two axes of the due process principle and the request for the discovery of the substantive truth should be mutually realized in harmony rather than abandoning any one.

The Supreme Court of Korea has made the conclusions about the punishment of juristic persons based on the Act of natural persons. None of the above rulings, however, provide a concrete ground for this conclusion. It is merely to state that joint penal provisions is the legal basis for reaching this conclusion. In addition, the above rulings do not provide any clue as to what part of the joint penal provisions should be interpreted in order to obtain such conclusions. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal nature of legal provisions and legal requirements for juristic persons punishment. However, there have been no studies on the legal nature of the joint penal provisions in academia or in practice. Thus, this article interpreted the legal nature of the joint penal provisions through further and subtile interpretation, and supplemented what the Supreme Court of Korea did not say.

샌프란시스코 평화조약은 연합국과 일본 사이에 체결된 법적 구속력 있는 합의문서로서 제2차 대전 이후 아시아태평양에서의 새로운 국제질서인 샌프란시스코 체제의 법적 정점이다. 전후 국제질서에 대한 국제적 법 체제(legal system)로서 샌프란시스코 조약체제는 카이로선언과 포츠담 선언 그리고 이를 수락한 일본 항복문서, 연합국총사령부(SCAP)가 제정하여 공포한 법적 구속력 있는 명령들(instruments)과 샌프란시스코 평화조약, 그리고 샌프란시스코 평화조약 체결 이후의 국제적 합의와 관행을 포함하는 광범위한 국제적 법적 합의의 체제로 이해할 수 있다. 영토분쟁의 당사국들이 제시하는 다양한 근거에 대한 국제법원의 실행을 살펴보면 영토 주권 또는 국경관련 분쟁에 대하여 권원(title)을 입증할 적용가능한 조약법(treaty law)이 존재하는 경우 이를 우선 적용하고, 조약이 존재하지 않을 경우 그리고 특히 식민지에서 해방된 신생국들과 관련된 경우에 기존 행정관할경계유지(uti possidetis) 원칙을 고려하 며, 앞서의 두 가지 준칙을 적용할 수 없는 경우에 대상이 된 영토 또는 지역에 대한 실효적 지배(effective control) 여부 또는 정도를 기준으로 권원의 존재와 영토주권의 귀속을 판단하고 있다. 국제법원의 사례를 보면 독도문제에 국제법적 근거로서 샌프란시스코 평화조약을 최우선으로 해석하여 적용할 가능성이 있으며 이러한 경우 당사국간에 분쟁의 해결은 물론 결과를 통한 평화 달성에 한계가 분명하다. 더욱이 샌프란시스코 평화조약은 동서냉전과 한국전쟁 그리고 한미일 군사동맹체제 등 당사국의 사활적 국가이익이라는 고도의 정치적 요인으로 인하여 조약에 의한 영토경계획정을 유보하였다. 그럼에도 불구하고 독도에 대한 언급을 의도적으로 배제한 조약을 기초로 국제법원이 사법적 판단을 하는 경우에 당해 법원은 샌프란시스코 조약뿐만 아니라 동 조약의 체결 이전에 이루어진 국제적 합의로서 카이로선언, 포츠담 선언, SCAPIN 677과 1033 등을 동 조약의 영토조항 해석의 기준으로 인정해야 할 것이다.

Heute haben fast alle Leute, die Internet benutzen, Internet-Link direkt oder indirekt erheben. Die Frage ist, dass man sich durch Internet-Link ab und zu unrecht webseite, z.B. Angriff auf Urheberrecht, Porno etc. nährt. Dann kommt es zuerst in Betracht, ob man, wer einen Link auf diese Webseite erstellt, die Beihilfe betrifft. Zweites ist die Frage, ob Internetdienstanbieter, wer einen Internetraum anbietet, auch die Beihilfe von Beihilfe(Kettenbeihilfe) betrifft. Aber es ist nicht einfach, dass Internetdienstanbieter den Vorsatz bei Beihilfe hat, weil es ist –nach in dubio pro reo- auch schwer, dass er Unrecht von einem bestimmten Website erkennt.

There are futures, options as derivatives in our capital-market including KOSPI200 futures and options. Unfortunately linked-manipulations between stock tradings and derivatives tradings happen too often. It is able to distinguish linked-manipulations from faked-normal stock tradings using some criterias ; real purposes of tradings, rationals manners or not, the scales of profits. These acts of unfair trades are increasing in our capital market and especially the occurrences of new type of unfair trades cast attentions on same fields for example manipulations disguising hedge in option trades etc. Crimes in manipulations fields are developing without halts. In order to cope with its revolutions, we should make clear standards to distinguish linked-manipulations from faked-normal stock-tradings by searching same case studies.

In der koreanischen Lehre behandelt man den Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum als Vorsatzproblem, indem man ihn als Tatbestansirrtum oder als Verbotsirrtum sieht. All diesbezügliche deutschen Ansichten sind in Korea fast gleich eingeführt. Die koreanische überwiegende Meinung folgt der rechtsfolgenverweisenden Schuldtheorie wie in Deutschland. Zur Zeit steigt sich die strege Schuldtheorie. Die koreanische Rechtsprechung geht anderen Weg, auf dem sie zur Rechtfertigung führt, wenn der Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum gerechte Gründe hat. Diese Position wird von der Lehre heftig kritisiert, es gebe überhaupt keinen Irrtum, der irgenwie zur Rechtfertigung führt. Der Grund ist bis jetzt nicht angegeben. Die Notwehrlage ist ex-post beurtelt. In korea ist diese ex-post Betrachtung allgemein anerkannt. Dagegen beruht die koreanische Rechtsprechung auf der ex-ante Beurteilung objektiv nach der allgemeinen Personen an Stelle des Täters. Die Notwehrlage verankert sich dadurch als normative Voraussetzung in Anbetracht aller Umstände. Wenn die Notwehrlage in diesem Sinne ist verneint, kommt die Putativnotwehr mit gerechtem Grund in Betracht, was den Täter auch zur Rechtfertigung führt. Die Unterscheidung zwischen Notwehr und Putativnotwehr erfolgt mit dem Urteil der gerechten Gründe zugleich. Die Notwehrlage ist also normative Gefahrenbewertung über die Situation, in welcher sich der Täter befindet. Die Putativnotwehr ist in Korea zweierlei behandeln. Die Irrtumslehre betont die Abweichung vom Objektem und Subjektem. Aber die koreanische Rechtsprechung versucht auf der Rechtswidrigkeitsebene beides normativ zu harmonisieren. Die Notwehrlage ist in diesem Sinne ex-ante normative Voraussetzung, in die alle Umstände für die Wertung in Betracht kommen.

1. Im folgenden wird die Rechtsprechung des koreanischen obersten Gerichts(das höchste Gericht, 27. 11. 2014, 2013do15164) kommentiert. Dabei geht es um folgenden Sachverhalt. A hat das Gesäß der jungen Frau berührt so dass er wegen des Verstoss gegen das Gesetz zum Schutz von Kindern und Jugendlichen(das sog. Jugendschutzgesetz) verurteilt wurde. Nachdem seine Brufung sowie Revisionn erfolglos war, wurde dieses Uteil endgültig festgeschrieben. Gemäß §34 Abs. 1 dieses Gesetzes soll der wegen der sexuellen Belästigugung Verurteilte aber innerhalb von 40 Tagen bei der für seinen Wohnsitz zuständigen Polizei persönliche Daten vorlegen. Dennoch hat er ohne triftigen Grund diese Auflage nicht erfüllt so dass er bei der ersten Instanz zur Urteilsbebewährung zur Geldstrafe eine Milion Won verurteilt wurde. Dagegen hat er bei der Berufungsinstanz beschworen, dass er kein Unterlagen über die Anmeldugnspflicht bei der Polizei erhlaten hat. Während die zweite Instanz das Urtiel der ersten Instanz verworfen hat, wurde diese Entscheidung wiederum beim obersten Gericht aufgehoben. 2. M.E. geht es hier eigentlich darum, wie die Anmeldepflicht, persönliche Informationen bei der Polizei vorzulegen, aufzufassen ist. Hier ist sehr hilfreich, wenn die Dikussion in Deutschland in Bezug genommen wird. Tiedemann zufolge, der die sog. Vorsatztheorie vertritt, soll die Verbotskenntnis zum Vorsatz gehören, wenn dies vernünftigerweise unerläßlich ist, um ein Unrechtsbewusstsein zu haben. Diese Überlegung beruht darauf, dass die Tatbetandsverwirklichung eine Unrechtsimpuls vermittelt und dass ein solcher Unrechtsappell nur aus der Verwirklichung unrechtstypischer Umstände erwächst. Auch Roxin behauptet die sog. weichere Schuldtheorie, nach der das Bewusstsein der Rechtswidrigkeit in weitem Umfang Vorsatzbestandteil bildet, wenn die rechtliche Missbiligung eines Verhaltens erst durch außertatbestandliche Gebote oder Verbote hervorgerufen wird, wie es häufig im Nebenstrafrecht zu beobachten ist. Denn der Sinn seines Verhaltens bleibt dem Täter eben bei seinen Fehlen verschlossen. Zum Beipiel kann allein derjenige gegen eine strafbewehrte Meldepflicht verstoßen, der diese Meldepflicht kennt. Tiedemann und Roxin sind darin einig, dass das eine intellektuelle Fehlleitung des Täters einen anderen Vorwurf verdient als seine etisch-moralische Fehlleistung. Aber anders als Tiedemann, der in diesen Fällen bereits den Vorsatz des Täters verneint, will Roxin zwar den Vorsatz stehen lassen, aber durch Annahme eines unvermeidbaren Verbotsirrtums zu einem Freispruch kommen. 3. Im Gegensatz zur herrschenden Lehre hat das oberste Gericht §16 des Koreanischen Strafgesetzes dahingehend ausgelegt, dass lediglich die positive irrige Annahme des Täters, kein Unrecht zu tun, als Rechtsirrtum gewertet werden soll. Dagegen soll die Unkennnis des Gesetzes nicht als Rechtsirrtum angesehen werden. Aber diese vom obersten Gericht vorgenommene Beschränkung des Verbotsirrtums auf die positive Annahme des Täters, kein Unrecht zu tun, setzt sich folgende Einwänden aus. Zuerst geht diese Auslegungspraxis auf den Grundgedanken, dass eoror iuris nocet, der in der modernen Zeit nicht gelten kann, weil niemand unzählige Nebenstrafgesetz kennt. Zweitens kann diese enge Auslegung des Rechtsirrtums auch zur Friktion mit der Schuldfähigkeit zur Folge haben. Denn die Rechtsfolge fallen unterschiedlich aus, je nach dem, nach welchem Grundsatz die Fehlvorstellung des Täters beurteilt werden soll, auch wenn die Unrechtseinsicht in beiden Fällen gleich sein soll. Drittens liegt der Haupteinwand darin dass diese Ansicht des obersten Gerichts gerade gegen das Schuldprinzip verstößt, das Strafe Schuld voraussetzt, die das Bewusstsein fordert, Unrecht zu tun. 4. M.E. gibt es zu dem betreffenden Fall drei verschiedene Lösungswege. Die erste Lösung geht davon aus, dass das Gesetz, in dem die Anmeldungspflicht des Verurteilten vorgeschrieben ist, ein Tabestandselement darstellt. Daher soll der Vorsatz des Täters verneint werden, wenn der Täter das nicht kennt. Diese Ansicht hat die zweite Instanz behauptet. Die zweite Lösung, die vom obersten Gericht vertreten wird, behauptet, dass die Unkennnis des Gesetzes nicht als Rechtsirrtum angesehen werden soll. Daher bleibt die Unkenntnis des Gesetezes unbeachtlich. Die dritte M.E. angemessene Lösung geht von der Schuldlehre, die den Vorsatz als Tatvorsatz und das Bewußtsein der Rechtswidrigkeit als ein vom Vorsatz getrennntes selbständige Schuldelement begreift, aus und beurteilt dann ‘den zureichenden Grund’ in §16 nach dem Kriterium der Vermeidbarkeit. Dabei geht es vor allem darum, zu überprüfen, ob der Täter einen Anlaß gehabt hätte, über eine mögliche Rechtswidrigkeit seines Verhaltens nachzudenken oder sich danach zu erkundigen. Dabei sei erwähnt, dass die Entscheidung letztlich von der konkreten Sachlage abhängt. 5. Letztlich sei hier empfohlen, über die Plausibilität der Ansicht des obersten Gerichts gründlich nachzudenken. Dabei sollen vor allem die theortischen Auseinandersetzungen über den Irrtum in Nebenstrafrecht in Deutschland in weitem Maße berücksichtigt werden. Das ist deswegen dringlich vonnoten, weil die verhängte Strafe in diesem Fall uns überhaupt nicht überzeugt. Vielmehr sollte Nachsicht am Platz sein, wenn Tatbestandsvorsatz nicht ohne wieteres den Schluß auf die Kenntnis der Rechtsdwidrigkeit nahelegt.

Von einem Jurisdiktionskonflikt i.w.S. kann an sprechen, wenn ein Täter in einem Land bereits wegen einer bestimmten Straftat abgeurteilt wurde, später aber erneut in einem anderen Land wegen derselben Straftat abgeurteilt werden soll. Grundsätzlich wird eine solche mehrfache Strafverfolgung durch den ne-bis-in-idem Grundsatz verboten. Er ist jedoch im zwischenstaatlichen Rechtsverkehr nicht anerkannt. Danach ist nur eine mehrmalige Verurteilung durch koreanische Gerichte verboten. Trotzdem ist die Möglichkeit der Doppelbestrafung gegen Verdächtigen geblieben. Deshalb werde ich mit diesem Aufsatz den Reformvorschlag über das Art.7 KStGB überprüfen wie im folgendem; 1) KOGH 2013. 4. 11., 2013Do2208 Urteil; KVerfGE 2015. 5. 28., 2013Heonba129 Urteil 2) Einleitung 3) Die Geschichte des Art.7 KStGB und Ihre Diskussion über den Reformvorschlag 4) Die Stellungnahme von Lehre und Rechtsprechung über Art.7 KStGB - Lehre und Rechtsprechung in Korea und eigene Stellungnahme 5) Die verschiedene Gesetzgebungsmodelle auf die Behandlung der im Ausland vollstreckten Strafe - GB, USA, Deutschland, Japan, Österreich, China 6) Art.7 KStGB de lege ferende (1) ne-bis-in-idem Grundsatz und Art.7 KStGB (2) Zum Anrechnungsprinzip als Reformvorschlag des Art. 7 KStGB

The offense of disturbance of domestic peace and security (trespass) has a not inconsiderable amount of theoretical problems that deserve a closer look. Among them is the following case, whether the enter through concealing the criminal purpose must be punished with trespassing. Previously the supreme Court of Korea affirmed on this issue with the grounds that penetrate is against the true (hypothetical) will of the injured. But the solution of supreme court is not without problems. Penetrate is entering the protected space against the will of owner or others who have the right of possession. So if the owner approves entering, there is a priori no ‘penetrate’ and therefore no trespassing. The consent of the owner is basically also effective even if it was fraudulently by mere deception. The intent of the perpetrator in the house to commit a crime (for example theft) is not critical because it is not recognizable to outsiders. This view is substantiated by a case study: Through deception of his purpose A can go into another house with consent of owner. After A’s criminal plan this first visit is only for identification of the object of the crime. He wants to commit theft at the next visit, if only there is nobody in the house. In my opinion, A can not be punished as the offense of trespass.